Given, the time, any decent electronic type, could build a volt meter. Why, because a volt has been defined. In order to measure something, it first must be defined. You could not build a meter for a gasoline pump, if the volume of a gallon were not define.
Yet Robert Riech, for reasons unknown to the science of economics insists that somehow fairness is essential to an economic recover, from Puffington Post [1]:
The Cory Booker imbroglio has ignited a silly but potentially pernicious debate in the Democratic Party between so-called “pro-growth centrists” who want the president to focus on how well he’s done getting the economy back on its feet after the Bush administration almost knocked it out, and “pro-fairness populists” who want him to focus on the nation’s widening inequality and Wall Street’s (and Romney’s) continuing role in generating profits for a few at the expense of almost everyone else
[…]
Translated into presidential politics, all this means the president should be talking about fairness and growth and jobs, and explaining why we can’t have the latter without the former.
Reich rails that fairness is essential, but no where does in his article, does Riech bother, or attempt, to define what he considers fair, and why it is essential. As Reich provides no definition of fairness, it is utterly impossible to measure Riech’s fairness. In the PP comments, Reich’s concept of fairness was described as Orwellian. Well said.
Professor, your paper fail. Go study some economics and resubmit.